Abortion and gay rights

[quote name='thrustbucket']My ultimate view on this, as with most things, is that the government should stay out of it.

But I still think it's funny that many pro-gay rights people are disgusted by polygamy. You can't have it both ways. If you give rights to one group, you have to recognize and give rights to the other.

BTW- If you think that even half of polygamists marry or have sex with children under 18, you bought into the media lie and are wrong.[/quote]


exactly, if you look in the big picture, every generation needs some idea to champion and rebel against the current social norms. it is only a matter of time when all past taboos are broken and championed in the name of social progression.

the future generations can choose anything from incest, polygamy, polyandry, sex with anything unusual (robots, animals, etc) , gender changes, whatever. anything can be rationalized and argued for
 
I'm totally pro-abortion at any time. If a mother doesn't want or can't take care of a child, why force her? Maybe the mother knows that the child won't have a very good life with her, and that adoption only makes it worse. (Chances of the kid finding a family is slim to none.) Also, what if the father is no longer there? We don't need any more bastard children in the world. I know that killing is wrong, but I'd rather do that than let a child go into an orphanage with no parents. Criticize me all you want, that's my view.

Also, who honestly cares what gay people do? They're not affecting you in any way. And having gay adoptions just helps those poor kids, why should you take away a child's happiness just because you think it's wong. If you really think that way, fuck you. People say that it's gross when gay people show affection. So what? It's just as gross when straight people do it. I don't care who you are, if I see you mauling somebody while I'm trying to eat lunch at McDonald's, it's fucking disgusting. And I WILL let you know.

My opinion on this all: the government needs to stay the fuck out.
 
Evan, I think you missed the point. We're talking about specific individuals in all cases here. When we're talking about "gay rights" I assume we mean the benefits a civil union would carry as would be the case in a heterosexual marriage. In both those cases we're talking about a specific couple of people, not the sexual orientation at large. That would be the point where we need to include incestuous "marriages" to stay consistent. The difference is incest is still horrendously taboo while homosexuality is quickly become not to the majority. If there was a similar increased sympathy for incestuous couples in our country and they were looking for similar right to those of traditional heterosexual married couples, their case would be just as strong as the homosexual case is now.

There's obviously differences when "homosexuality" refers to a broad sexual orientation whereas incest tends to deal with a specific set of people. But in the context, we're zeroing in on specific people. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

And there is only one context when heterosexual sex isn't morally wrong: within the bonds of marriage. I'm sorry you're threatened by my moral and religious beliefs. But if you read closely I never used them as a basis for argument as you assumed. I only stated what was morally right and wrong to me. You seem to be assuming some sort of forcing of morals by that. For that, I'm sorry you misread me as well.

ADDITION EDIT: Your idea of no state-supported definition of marriage does make some sense to me, because of the slippery slope that does exist for this sort of thing. Would you suggest changing the tax laws to just being the same for every individual person at that point rather than recognizing any unions at all?

[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm totally pro-abortion at any time. If a mother doesn't want or can't take care of a child, why force her? Maybe the mother knows that the child won't have a very good life with her, and that adoption only makes it worse. (Chances of the kid finding a family is slim to none.)[/quote]So, for anyone who's not going to be ultra successful we should just kill them? I think a lot of people prefer living in a less than desirable condition to death. You also seem to have no idea how many thousands of couples there are who can't have children for one reason or another just waiting to be able to adopt a child.
 
[quote name='daroga']And there is only one context when heterosexual sex isn't morally wrong: within the bonds of marriage. I'm sorry you're threatened by my moral and religious beliefs. But if you read closely I never used them as a basis for argument as you assumed. I only stated what was morally right and wrong to me.
[/QUOTE]

:applause:
I really wish there were more people whom were very heavily involved in their religion like you. Really. :applause:

You're a pastor, right? Or you're in training to become one..? Do me a favor, teach people to be like that. Teach people to believe and have faith in their religion, but to respect and leave other people alone :lol: Honestly, that is the moral of the story!!

I'm so happy I read that. Really :)
 
[quote name='lilboo']:applause:
I really wish there were more people whom were very heavily involved in their religion like you. Really. :applause:

You're a pastor, right? Or you're in training to become one..? Do me a favor, teach people to be like that. Teach people to believe and have faith in their religion, but to respect and leave other people alone :lol: Honestly, that is the moral of the story!!

I'm so happy I read that. Really :)[/quote]I will be in about 2 months.... assuming I pass my classes. ;)

There are so many people who bring such a horrible name to those who just don't believe that homosexuality is morally acceptable. Those people picketing the military funerals because "God's killing soldiers cause of all teh gayz!" The heck? I watched that Fox News piece on those people where the reporter just rips the woman a new one. That woman didn't know her Bible very well, nor did she know what most of it said.

I find it hard to believe that any of them are trying to actually reach out to people who live sinful lifestyles and hope that they turn from it for their spiritual well-being. If they are, they have no idea how to approach anything. If you make it very clear that you're a complete asshole, why would I ever listen to anything you have to say or assume you're even being partially truthful with me when you confess you're worried for me? It's more just hate-mongering I think.

There's a similar side to the abortion issue. It's not so much in the news recently, but the people bombing abortion clinics or killing doctors who perform them? So, let me get this straight. You're righting the wrongs of the murder of these children by... killing people? Isn't that the very thing you're trying to stop?

It's a difficult situation to agree with a position that has such vocal whack-jobs associated with it. You always have to qualify things like this, "Yes, we believe/teach that, but we don't do/condone these types of things about it."
 
[quote name='daroga']So, for anyone who's not going to be ultra successful we should just kill them? I think a lot of people prefer living in a less than desirable condition to death. You also seem to have no idea how many thousands of couples there are who can't have children for one reason or another just waiting to be able to adopt a child.[/quote]

Sometimes putting a kid up for adoption is worse. I know a few kids that have been adopted. Some of them have been through 15 or 16 families, and some of those families beat them. Some kids get neglected. And yes, sometimes the child would be better off alive. But, sometimes, it won't. I'm not saying we should kill every unwanted baby, I'm saying that women should have the choice.

Also, I realize that people are waiting for children to adopt. Well, there are millions of children waiting to be adopted, and there are more coming. Some of those children will find loving homes, but some won't. We don't need any more kids without homes, when we can't even handle the ones we have now.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']Sometimes putting a kid up for adoption is worse. I know a few kids that have been adopted. Some of them have been through 15 or 16 families, and some of those families beat them. Some kids get neglected. And yes, sometimes the child would be better off alive. But, sometimes, it won't. I'm not saying we should kill every unwanted baby, I'm saying that women should have the choice.

Also, I realize that people are waiting for children to adopt. Well, there are millions of children waiting to be adopted, and there are more coming. Some of those children will find loving homes, but some won't. We don't need any more kids without homes, when we can't even handle the ones we have now.[/quote]Sadly much like puppies and kittens vs. adults dogs and cats, infants are much more "adoptable" than older children. A woman who is pregnant will have no trouble finding someone who would be excited to adopt her soon-to-be-born child. Many couples go to foreign countries to adopt largely because the waiting list for infants here is so long. Your argument doesn't really apply to abortion vs. adoption argument.

Even so, I daresay most children would prefer to be in an orphanage or foster homes than dead. You could test that theory though. Find a child who's upset with his lot in life because of those very situations and hold a gun to his head and ask him if he'd rather be dead. I think you'd find most wouldn't be too keen on that idea.
 
My opinion on these two issues:

Abortion, I have no opinion really. If anything, I more so support the choice of the woman (I have my reasons for that).

As for gay rights, I personally have no problems with gay/same sex marriages at all. Not something I'd ever do (since I want a woman), but I don't have a problem with people doing it. I personally wish states or whatever wouldn't ban gay marriages and allow the same rights to gays. As long as they aren't hurting people, no problem.

Where my opinion is strong has to do with handgun control, but I already explained in another thread over that.
 
[quote name='billyrox']exactly, if you look in the big picture, every generation needs some idea to champion and rebel against the current social norms. it is only a matter of time when all past taboos are broken and championed in the name of social progression.
[/quote]

:applause:

[quote name='billyrox']the future generations can choose anything from incest, polygamy, polyandry, sex with anything unusual (robots, animals, etc) , gender changes, whatever. anything can be rationalized and argued for[/quote]

Putting incest and animal love in that list is such dirty pool. The other items in the list involve relationships between consenting adults. There is a clear line that can be drawn.

Oh - and by the way, if you've ever watched porn on a tv or computer you're already halfway to having sex with a :robot:
 
[quote name='BigT']The difference between a zygote and a newborn is large. But, then again, the differences between a newborn and a toddler and an adolescent are also large. Of course, I doubt that zygotes are capable of emotion, reasoning, and communication. But, the repetoire of newborns is also very limited. They don't start smiling with purpose until about 1.5 months. Their brains are still in the process of refining and myelinating connections. Their communication is pretty much limited to crying and they keep their hands clenched in fists with no capacity to grab or rake anything. (for more fun facts, check out a milestone chart).

The human genome has been sequenced. Unfortunately, it's complicated, and we're not sure what many of the genes actually do... But still, the actual molecules that form the famous double helix, wrap around histones, and then compress into chromosomes are what serves as a plan for our future growth. Also, having the correct amount and configuration of these chromosomes is crucial for the development of a zygote. Not uncommonly, things go wrong when DNA is copied and certain eggs and/or sperm may have faulty genetic material. Mother nature takes care of this by spontaneously aborting zygotes/fetuses with major genetic disorders (some say that about 40% of all fertilized eggs get spontaneously aborted, often so early that it is unknown to the mother). So, having the correct complement of DNA and surviving the early automatic checks does, in part, determine viability.

Sperm, by themselves, do not have the potential for further growth. They only have a haploid complement of DNA. Even if an empty egg is fertilized by a sperm and then the chromosomes are doubled to yield a diploid complement, no fetus will develop. Instead, one gets a complete molar pregnancy (an abnormal, quasi-cancerous growth within the uterus that contains no fetal tissue; see http://www.emedicine.com/med/topic1047.htm )
A zygote with grossly normal DNA, will more likely than not develop into a newborn, if given the correct environment.[/quote]

Thanks for the info, I knew that sperm didn't have all the info needed for the genetic blueprint but I thought they had more then what you described.

As with many moral issues, I see abortion as a grey shaded moral issue on a sliding scale starting at "the night after" and ending with "the moment of birth". To me, human sentience is not reached the moment the sperm touches the egg, rather it is many weeks later. Therefore I would not lose any sleep over abortions performed in this early time period. Late in the third trimester is hinky to me though (although if there were health complications I would readily support whatever the mother chose)

I believe that many conservative christians are dogmatic on the issue of abortion and refuse to look at it with anything other then a black-and-white perspective (IE it is wrong, period). Some radical christians even object to contraceptives because they kill sperm or female eggs.

It's interesting that these very same christians have a complex and nuanced view on other moral topics such as finances, violence, and the consumption of shellfish. The bible has strong and inflexible viewpoints on these topics, yet somehow those viewpoints are swept aside via verbal jujitsu in the pursuit of more expedient courses of action.
 
I have to admit that I don't sit around reading the bible for pleasure and haven't 'studied' any books since I was a wee lad. I don't for the life of me remember where exactly the bible says life begins at conception and not birth and that abortion was some mortal sin. Can we get some scholarship here for reference, please ?
 
[quote name='bmulligan']I have to admit that I don't sit around reading the bible for pleasure and haven't 'studied' any books since I was a wee lad. I don't for the life of me remember where exactly the bible says life begins at conception and not birth and that abortion was some mortal sin. Can we get some scholarship here for reference, please ?[/quote]In Psalm 51, David says that he was sinful from birth, sinful from his conception. Psalm 139:13-16 speaks about God knowing us as he formed us in the womb.

Some incidental things come from the same words are used for unborn babies as are for infants, and conception and birth being spoken of as a unit ("She conceived and gave birth...")

With life established in the womb, an unborn child falls under the same protection of "You shall not murder" as you and I do.
 
Why is incest dirty pool? Assuming it's between consensual adults; nonconsensual sex (between anyone) , or between those who don't understand, is wrong. Reference polygamy again (as in, that's another example of consensual sex that most gay rights spokespeople denigrate and somehow see as different.)

If we're overpopulated, we should start with all those people on death row, who've had their chance, and pissed on society's rules (the simple ones, like "don't dismember your neighbours"). Reversible sterilization at birth would even work.

"But, sometimes, it won't. I'm not saying we should kill every unwanted baby, I'm saying that women should have the choice."

Love it. Too bad the child can't have the choice to be born. I've said this before--in 90% of cases, the women 'chose' to have sex. (Yes, of course I'm excluding cases like rape or sexual abuse, or mentally challenged people.) Whether or not we agree that third graders should be getting detailed and graphic sex ed (and not just "This is the penis, this is the vagina, here's what can happen to and in the body during and after intercourse, here's how to be safe", but "This is a dildo, this is how to use it, let's study S&M and Furryism now"), I think most can agree that sex ed is important--both the hows and the whys, and the alternatives. It's a cliche, but abstinence does work every time it's tried. Thirteen year olds can be happy without putting out (or in) with everyone on the football team/cheerleading squad.

I haven't read the thread on gun control, but it would be interesting if there's an inverse relationship between support of an issue and its constitionality (ie, "right to life", and most here are at least ambivalent on abortion if not straight out pro "choice"; no actual "right to marriage,", yet most here are all for this 'right'; where does the right to bear arms stand.)
 
[quote name='dtcarson']Why is incest dirty pool? Assuming it's between consensual adults; nonconsensual sex (between anyone) , or between those who don't understand, is wrong. Reference polygamy again (as in, that's another example of consensual sex that most gay rights spokespeople denigrate and somehow see as different.)[/quote]

Incest has a high likelihood of resulting in children with severe health issues. Thus, there is a logical and humane reason for outlawing it.

What could the logical and humane reason be for outlawing voluntary polygamy or for that matter "robot sex" (as you phrase it)
 
[quote name='camoor']Incest has a high likelihood of resulting in children with severe health issues. Thus, there is a logical and humane reason for outlawing it.[/quote]While I agree with you here (I'm doing a little to much "pro-incest" devil's advocating here for my own comfort), should we then outlaw anyone from procreating who has a chance of passing along fairly defective genes to their children? And if so, what's the line to be drawn there?

EDIT: And I've just got to say, we've got two fiercely debated and emotional topics shoved into one thread here for some reason, and nearly the whole of the replies have been civil and good for discussion. Let's keep it up :)
 
[quote name='daroga']While I agree with you here (I'm doing a little to much "pro-incest" devil's advocating here for my own comfort), should we then outlaw anyone from procreating who has a chance of passing along fairly defective genes to their children? And if so, what's the line to be drawn there?

EDIT: And I've just got to say, we've got two fiercely debated and emotional topics shoved into one thread here for some reason, and nearly the whole of the replies have been civil and good for discussion. Let's keep it up :)[/quote]

Haha yeah that's a thornier question IMO, it's starting to get into eugenics territory. I love that movie Gattaca because it illustrates the moral issues inherent in designer kids and social engineering. At the same time I think it's only a matter of time before humanity starts taking responsibility of their genetic blueprint and resplicing it - once the tech is perfected and humanity is ready to evolve, then oh that will be an exiting time! (that I will prob never see :cry:)

On the health defect issue I saw this program about this lady that kept having children even though she had 4 in a row that died of this horrible cancer only a few years into life (her fifth was terminally ill and the show was mainly about him). She kept having kids! I mean - I felt super bad for her loss, but there is something to be said for avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering.
 
Yeah, in that case you'd think adoption would be a better way to go emotionally. But who knows?

Kinda brings up an interesting thought. Incestuous couple wants to adopt children rather than try to test the gene pool. Should they be allowed a civil union?
 
[quote name='daroga']
Kinda brings up an interesting thought. Incestuous couple wants to adopt children rather than try to test the gene pool. Should they be allowed a civil union?[/QUOTE]

Sure, why not? I could say "That's creepy" but someone can say the same thing about me :lol:
 
[quote name='camoor']Incest has a high likelihood of resulting in children with severe health issues. Thus, there is a logical and humane reason for outlawing it.

What could the logical and humane reason be for outlawing voluntary polygamy or for that matter "robot sex" (as you phrase it)[/quote]

If you look at the data, the effect of consanguinity (fancy term for incest) on the risk of genetic disorders in a child is often overstated. The overall risk for significant genetic disease caused by unions between first cousins is about 5%. This can be compared to the baseline risk of 2% for random mating.

The biggest problem is that autosomal recessive conditions (diseases which need a defective gene from each parent) have a higher incidence. This is because relatives tend to share a percentage of genes and thus have a higher chance of both having a copy of the defective gene that they can pass on to their offspring (here's where Punnett squares come in).

But still, 95 times out of a 100, a child produced by the mating of first cousins will be pretty much normal. So if you have a hot cousin... ;)
 
[quote name='lilboo']Sure, why not? I could say "That's creepy" but someone can say the same thing about me :lol:[/quote]


Jesuth Christh
 
[quote name='billyrox']exactly, if you look in the big picture, every generation needs some idea to champion and rebel against the current social norms. it is only a matter of time when all past taboos are broken and championed in the name of social progression.[/quote]

...only to be replaced by newly constructed taboos and social prohibitions. There's no boundary to what we consider immoral/irresponsible, only creations.

Some older societies normalized homosexuality, but wasn't consistent at the time, and didn't remain the case from that moment on.

Like long hair on men: barely dangerous now, a visual indicator of an irresponsible heathen and dirty hippie 40 years ago, virtually unheard of 80 years ago, and something particularly typical 300 years ago.

Now, of course, some institutions remain constant: after all, in the absence of heterosexual couples, we'll cease to continue to exist. So there's little to be accomplished by trying to reduce/eliminate heterosexuality. But to act like the back-and-forth social and political negotiation is a one-way street is absurd, contrary to reality over very long periods of time, ignored how society is responsible for creating new moral ills as well as taking others off the list, is ultimately silly (not to mention a slippery slope argument, and virtually invalid as a result).

Good ol' ragtime music survived the early 20th century, when it was considered uncivilized negro music that would lead to the downfall of society, and encourage negroes to participate in the sorts of shiftless, irresponsible, and lazy behaviors that they were stereotypically known for. It was taking the big band era and stripping it down, which was seen as uncouth.

Meanwhile, today Jazz and its predecessors in the 20th century are considered very high culture in music. So it wasn't deciding one thing was bad and moving onto the next: social facts flow into and out of general appreciation over space and time, with a few constants.
 
[quote name='Access_Denied']I'm totally pro-abortion at any time.[/quote]
I almost agree with where you are going at this point. I sort of feel that if a woman is allowed to knock off her kid before birth for frivolous reasons, why should it be illegal for her to preform a post-birth abortion too? I see almost no difference.

It does seem somewhat inconsistent to me. But the rest of what you said I find quite troubling.

If a mother doesn't want or can't take care of a child, why force her?
Click to expand...
The very last thing society, and even the government, wants, is to force a mother to take care of a child she doesn't want. That has nothing to do with the issue here.

Maybe the mother knows that the child won't have a very good life with her, and that adoption only makes it worse.
Click to expand...
How can anyone possibly think adoption would be worse than death? How would you feel if your mom didn't feel "up to" having a kid when she got knocked up with you? I guess you'd have to understand...

(Chances of the kid finding a family is slim to none.)
Click to expand...
Tell that to the massive list of families in America waiting for babies to be born that are unwanted that they can adopt. Most of the time a mother chooses abortion over the adoption route it's because she simply doesn't want to go through pregnancy, her body will never be the same, and she won't attract more guys to fuck her indiscriminately as easily. (i.e. selfishness).

Also, what if the father is no longer there? We don't need any more bastard children in the world. I know that killing is wrong, but I'd rather do that than let a child go into an orphanage with no parents. Criticize me all you want, that's my view.
Click to expand...

So you are basically saying that given the choice of an orphanage, no father, or a bad father, you would hope your mom had the good sense to put you out of your misery, rather than have a shot at some type of life?

Wouldn't you prefer to be given the choice to live or die? You would honestly prefer someone make that for you? If it got bad enough, you could always kill yourself. But I find it very unlikely that you wouldn't like to at least have the chance to decide for yourself.

Following your line of logic, we should probably just exterminate all children in orphanages, have social services exterminate kids in "bad homes", and while we're at it, maybe we should just take everyone below the poverty line and throw them in a gas chamber for their own good. None of those kids/people have it as good as us, so they obviously shouldn't be alive. Right?
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Most of the time a mother chooses abortion over the adoption route it's because she simply doesn't want to go through pregnancy, her body will never be the same, and she won't attract more guys to fuck her indiscriminately as easily. (i.e. selfishness).[/quote]

Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. Obviously if you know you don't want a baby the quickest and easiest thing to do is get an abortion (which would usually be done pretty quickly after knowing you're pregnant) rather than going through the entire process of carrying the baby and then giving it up (which isn't an easy thing to do either). But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...
 
[quote name='SpazX']Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...[/QUOTE]

So thrust may sound a wee bit like a crazy person but that is actually a standard con talking point.
 
Man, I miss like 2 days of checking out the forum and there's a massive thread about the two most divisive topics in American politics. Wow.

For the record, I (for the most part) oppose one of them and strongly support the other. Try to guess!
 
[quote name='SpazX']Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. [/quote]Which of those isn't solved by adoption?
 
[quote name='daroga']Which of those isn't solved by adoption?[/QUOTE]

Uh it costs money to have a baby, plus lost income from taking off of work (or even possibly losing a job outright).
 
[quote name='Msut77']Uh it costs money to have a baby, plus lost income from taking off of work (or even possibly losing a job outright).[/quote]It also costs money to have an abortion. There's generally laws to keep people from getting fired simply because they're pregnant. Generally women take maternity leave to raise the child in the initial weeks after birth, not just to have the child. Unless there are complications, time off would be minimal in an adoption situation.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which of those is your choice to make for them, though?[/QUOTE]

This is what I love about this whole thread/debate. When it comes to gays, the main response is "Why should you care? It doesn't affect you." But the entire notion of let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else completely flies out the window when it comes to aborting someone. Making someone dead is quite literally the most negative impact you can have on another person.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. Obviously if you know you don't want a baby the quickest and easiest thing to do is get an abortion (which would usually be done pretty quickly after knowing you're pregnant) rather than going through the entire process of carrying the baby and then giving it up (which isn't an easy thing to do either). But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...[/QUOTE]

None of your reasons listed apply to adoption. And I don't believe it costs the mother anything for adoption. Mothers can often make a pretty dime off of it in this country.

I can think of countless situations where the quickest and easiest thing is to kill. Usually, the liberals are first to point out how wrong that answer is.

I know people that are waiting to adopt - there is nothing for the mother to lose other than 9 months of inconvenience. If you want to claim it costs mothers money to give their kids up for adoption, please provide evidence.

I would be perfectly ok with pro-choicers if they would just admit what you did, that killing is often the easiest and quickest solution and maybe we should employ it more often. At least then, they would be consistent.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This is what I love about this whole thread/debate. When it comes to gays, the main response is "Why should you care? It doesn't affect you." But the entire notion of let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else completely flies out the window when it comes to aborting someone. Making someone dead is quite literally the most negative impact you can have on another person.[/QUOTE]

Two things:

1) We disagree on "people" and we disagree on "making someone dead."

2) I'm actually only circumstantially pro-choice. I am, as an individual, someone who could never have an abortion. I would not allow my wife to have an abortion. I loathe the idea of abortion. But I am not interested in telling other people that they must not have them, or have access to them. I wish they didn't, and I wish there were none. Ultimately, I think the "should it be legal/illegal" debate is pointless for two reasons:

1) It will never be illegal. Republicans love abortion as a tool for motivating their blocs. Its legality gives the GOP a lot of political leverage, really.

2) The conversation around abortion should be, IMO, about how to best reduce it as close to zero as possible. Making it illegal is not one of those solutions. Now, I actually like the fact that so many anti-choice proponents, such as yourself, speak out. I don't agree with much of the rationale, but perpetual shaming and making abortion a constantly "controversial" topic means it can not ever become a simple, shameless surgical procedure. I don't think it should be an easy decision - so the ranting and venom of the right serves a vital function here, IMO.

That said, looking at ways of reducing abortion is important. Whether it's condom distribution that works, abstinence education that works (it doesn't, for the record), encouraging contraceptives other than condoms (norplant and the other variants that folks use these days), encouraging responsible sex, elevating the felt power of women in order to make them feel confident about insisting on contraceptive use - whatever it could be, really. At the end of the day, legal or illegal is a pointless debate to have: you can find common ground, I believe, in seeking ways to reduce abortions via reducing the chance of unwanted pregnancies occurring, and keep abortion a safe and legal option that very few people use.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']This is what I love about this whole thread/debate. When it comes to gays, the main response is "Why should you care? It doesn't affect you." But the entire notion of let people do what they want as long as it doesn't affect anyone else completely flies out the window when it comes to aborting someone. Making someone dead is quite literally the most negative impact you can have on another person.[/quote]

We're talking about fetuses, not people. Save this arguement for the death penalty thread.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Tell that to the massive list of families in America waiting for babies to be born that are unwanted that they can adopt. Most of the time a mother chooses abortion over the adoption route it's because she simply doesn't want to go through pregnancy, her body will never be the same, and she won't attract more guys to fuck her indiscriminately as easily. (i.e. selfishness).[/quote]

How do you know this? Do you actually know anyone who has taken this route, and have you discussed the reasoning with her?
 
[quote name='BigT']If you look at the data, the effect of consanguinity (fancy term for incest) on the risk of genetic disorders in a child is often overstated. The overall risk for significant genetic disease caused by unions between first cousins is about 5%. This can be compared to the baseline risk of 2% for random mating.

The biggest problem is that autosomal recessive conditions (diseases which need a defective gene from each parent) have a higher incidence. This is because relatives tend to share a percentage of genes and thus have a higher chance of both having a copy of the defective gene that they can pass on to their offspring (here's where Punnett squares come in).

But still, 95 times out of a 100, a child produced by the mating of first cousins will be pretty much normal. So if you have a hot cousin... ;)[/quote]

OK, so it's not as risky as it may be advertised. But last time I looked a 5% chance of significant genetic disease is more then double the baseline risk for random mating. With all the health issues people have already, I'm all for any measures that can cut health risks (especially those that cut them by more then half)
 
[quote name='camoor']We're talking about fetuses, not people. Save this arguement for the death penalty thread.[/quote]Of course.

When does that switch flip?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Two things:

1) We disagree on "people" and we disagree on "making someone dead."

2) I'm actually only circumstantially pro-choice. I am, as an individual, someone who could never have an abortion. I would not allow my wife to have an abortion. I loathe the idea of abortion. But I am not interested in telling other people that they must not have them, or have access to them. I wish they didn't, and I wish there were none. Ultimately, I think the "should it be legal/illegal" debate is pointless for two reasons:

1) It will never be illegal. Republicans love abortion as a tool for motivating their blocs. Its legality gives the GOP a lot of political leverage, really.

2) The conversation around abortion should be, IMO, about how to best reduce it as close to zero as possible. Making it illegal is not one of those solutions. Now, I actually like the fact that so many anti-choice proponents, such as yourself, speak out. I don't agree with much of the rationale, but perpetual shaming and making abortion a constantly "controversial" topic means it can not ever become a simple, shameless surgical procedure. I don't think it should be an easy decision - so the ranting and venom of the right serves a vital function here, IMO.

That said, looking at ways of reducing abortion is important. Whether it's condom distribution that works, abstinence education that works (it doesn't, for the record), encouraging contraceptives other than condoms (norplant and the other variants that folks use these days), encouraging responsible sex, elevating the felt power of women in order to make them feel confident about insisting on contraceptive use - whatever it could be, really. At the end of the day, legal or illegal is a pointless debate to have: you can find common ground, I believe, in seeking ways to reduce abortions via reducing the chance of unwanted pregnancies occurring, and keep abortion a safe and legal option that very few people use.[/QUOTE]

I actually, this time, agree with most of what you say. I am not interested in more government regulation as the answer to just about any problem. I am interested in a changing culture.

I disagree that handing out condoms is the answer, but most of what you said here I do agree with.

[quote name='camoor']We're talking about fetuses, not people. Save this arguement for the death penalty thread.[/QUOTE]

If you were killed when you were fetus, would you be any less dead now?

Semantics to me.

[quote name='camoor']How do you know this? Do you actually know anyone who has taken this route, and have you discussed the reasoning with her?[/QUOTE]

No. Admittedly I was being extreme in trying to illustrate how wrong it is for abortion to be used as birth control.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I disagree that handing out condoms is the answer, but most of what you said here I do agree with.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if it is or not; that was just an example.

The point here, I think, is to work this way:

1) Think about what could possibly reduce unwanted pregnancies (condoms, abstinence programs, sex ed, 'scared straight' programs, etc.). What are effective intervention strategies?

2) Test those hypotheses.

Of course, in the end you'd end up with social science research, which, it appears by your reaction to the other thread, is all dismissable as politically-driven and biased (;) - I kid, I kid. sorta.). But it's better to have social scientists testing out workable strategies to inform policy makers instead of relying on broad-based applications of unproven programs (e.g., faith-based initiatives) and then ignoring evidence that abstinence programs are, on their best day, unsuccessful, and on their worst, lead to a tiny increase in early intercourse (and everything bad that coincides with that). Not that it has bad intentions or is evil: but the foundation of abstinence-education currently rests on the idea that children need to know as little about sex as possible (other than that it's bad before marriage). Abstinence (as currently developed and implemented, not abstinence as an idea) education leads to more uninformed teens who are going to fuck anyway (they are teens), and the lack of knowledge compounds the problems we have. So the idea becomes thinking about what direction we move from here: how much detail should we give in sex ed classes? Should we now test a program that provides thorough information on sex, both performatively and scientifically, coupled with a pro-abstinence theme? Or should we abandon abstinence altogether?

It ultimately comes down to relying on individuals and politicians to get over their preconceived notions of how the world should work, humbly recognize if something is not working, and then modify it and try again.
 
Both of these issues could be solved by three simple words: "More butt sex."

Also, BTW FWIW, IMHO, Blastocytes FTMFW!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Should we now test a program that provides thorough information on sex, both performatively and scientifically, coupled with a pro-abstinence theme?[/quote]I'd be inclined to lean toward a program like this.

myke, I wonder if you have any information on abstinence programs that led to increased sexual activity among teens, and if possible, what angles they were taking with said program. I'd be interested to read some of those things, and that's not something I'd ever seen documented (although, oddly enough, I don't spend an enormous amount of time seeking out effectiveness of anti-pregnancy programs for teens).

I do know that a lot of times free contraceptives makes the problem worse, or at least makes things really awful for some girls as the horny boys say, "Come on, we've got the condoms/birth control pills/whatever, we should just do it!" The pregnancies through misuse or failure are troubling, but more so to me are the unjust pressure and emotional damage that can do to a young girl (or guy, too. I suppose there's cases of the stereotype roles being reversed, but I'm inclined to think pressure normally originates from the male side of the couple).
 
[quote name='SpazX']Last I checked the main reasons women give for abortions were cost, not wanting to have kids yet, not feeling ready, things like that. Obviously if you know you don't want a baby the quickest and easiest thing to do is get an abortion (which would usually be done pretty quickly after knowing you're pregnant) rather than going through the entire process of carrying the baby and then giving it up (which isn't an easy thing to do either). But apparently they're all whores so I could be wrong...[/quote]


All the more reason that I think a discussion of abortion rights is irrelevant without a discussion of the rights of the father as well.
 
The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. and

(2) there would be less need for abortions because you can't get pregnant when you make a bank deposit in the back door. There is also no opportunity for accidents due to improper use of birth control or condoms.

In short, put it in the back door, it will make you say "ooooohhhh" and you won't get pregnant!
 
[quote name='pittpizza']The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. and

(2) there would be less need for abortions because you can't get pregnant when you make a bank deposit in the back door. There is also no opportunity for accidents due to improper use of birth control or condoms.

In short, put it in the back door, it will make you say "ooooohhhh" and you won't get pregnant![/quote]


Do I even need to elaborate on the folly of that statement?
 
[quote name='daroga']I'd be inclined to lean toward a program like this.

myke, I wonder if you have any information on abstinence programs that led to increased sexual activity among teens, and if possible, what angles they were taking with said program. I'd be interested to read some of those things, and that's not something I'd ever seen documented (although, oddly enough, I don't spend an enormous amount of time seeking out effectiveness of anti-pregnancy programs for teens).

I do know that a lot of times free contraceptives makes the problem worse, or at least makes things really awful for some girls as the horny boys say, "Come on, we've got the condoms/birth control pills/whatever, we should just do it!" The pregnancies through misuse or failure are troubling, but more so to me are the unjust pressure and emotional damage that can do to a young girl (or guy, too. I suppose there's cases of the stereotype roles being reversed, but I'm inclined to think pressure normally originates from the male side of the couple).[/QUOTE]

I don't research sex, but I have read evaluative studies of abstinence-education programs (at private schools) that were put in place before 2000. The overall % of sexually active teens was no different b/w abstinence and non-abstinence (I don't recall if the control group was "everyone else" or "everyone else in a typical sex ed course") groups. The same % of them were sexually active. The only positive finding of abstinence education was that the onset of first intercourse (ain't nothin' more romantic than scientific writing like that - but it's their phrase, for the record) was delayed by 15-18 months in the abstinence group. So they were still sexually active, but a good clip later than others. The downside was what I mentioned earlier: their lack of sexual knowledge put them at higher risk than those who were familiar with contraceptives and the like.

I also read recently that the % of under-18 girls who become parents per 100,000 has gone up in recent years by a small margin. That's not an indictment of abstinence education entirely, but it does again suggest that, at the very best, it offers little improvement over traditional means of sex-ed. I'd like to see more studies before claiming that abstinence makes things worse.

As for your final point, I think that's quite valid, and said something similar earlier (about empowering women to be less submissive in the bedroom). I don't know how easily that can be done in terms of programs; I hate to say it, but there was some Avril Lavigne song that gets at this (I think the chorus went along the lines of "Did you really think I was gonna give it up to you?") idea that isn't necessarily pro-or-anti abstinence, but pro-woman and emphasizes her own role in the decision to have sex. Mass culture (as bad as Avril may be) is going to reach millions more people than any study I read or write, so that's a potentially important source of education as well.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Do I even need to elaborate on the folly of that statement?[/quote]

We are talking about butt sex here, as a way to prevent abortions. So yeah please explain to me how one can accidently get pregnant by improperly using birth control or condoms when they only have butt sex. I'd love to know.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']We are talking about butt sex here, as a way to prevent abortions. So yeah please explain to me how one can accidently get pregnant by improperly using birth control or condoms when they only have butt sex. I'd love to know.[/quote]

Well you weren't talking exclusivley about abortion. You went on a tangent yourself in your own post therefore I did as well...

"The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. "

What does that have to do with abortion?


My point is if there is improper use of a condom during anal sex disease should be a bigger concern than anything. You seemed to gloss right over that like it was nothing.
 
[quote name='GuilewasNK']Well you weren't talking exclusivley about abortion. You went on a tangent yourself in your own post therefore I did as well...

"The reason why anal sex is so great, is that if everyone did it:

(1) Gay males would get much more acceptance, while even gay females would enjoy more acceptance. "

What does that have to do with abortion?


My point is if there is improper use of a condom during anal sex disease should be a bigger concern than anything. You seemed to gloss right over that like it was nothing.[/quote]


Ehhhh, no...not really. You're wrong. This thread (see the title) is about two things: Gay rights, and Abortion.

My statements about butt sex were limited to those two contexts. I agree with your point about disease, but that is your tangent, not mine. I was staying on topic w/ the gay rights and abortion topics.

In conclusion, butt sex rules!
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't research sex, but I have read evaluative studies of abstinence-education programs (at private schools) that were put in place before 2000. The overall % of sexually active teens was no different b/w abstinence and non-abstinence (I don't recall if the control group was "everyone else" or "everyone else in a typical sex ed course") groups. The same % of them were sexually active. The only positive finding of abstinence education was that the onset of first intercourse (ain't nothin' more romantic than scientific writing like that - but it's their phrase, for the record) was delayed by 15-18 months in the abstinence group. So they were still sexually active, but a good clip later than others. The downside was what I mentioned earlier: their lack of sexual knowledge put them at higher risk than those who were familiar with contraceptives and the like.

I also read recently that the % of under-18 girls who become parents per 100,000 has gone up in recent years by a small margin. That's not an indictment of abstinence education entirely, but it does again suggest that, at the very best, it offers little improvement over traditional means of sex-ed. I'd like to see more studies before claiming that abstinence makes things worse.

As for your final point, I think that's quite valid, and said something similar earlier (about empowering women to be less submissive in the bedroom). I don't know how easily that can be done in terms of programs; I hate to say it, but there was some Avril Lavigne song that gets at this (I think the chorus went along the lines of "Did you really think I was gonna give it up to you?") idea that isn't necessarily pro-or-anti abstinence, but pro-woman and emphasizes her own role in the decision to have sex. Mass culture (as bad as Avril may be) is going to reach millions more people than any study I read or write, so that's a potentially important source of education as well.[/QUOTE]

I accept your claim that abstinence is limited in success. This is one of those issues that I really don't have answers for. I just know that no one thing is the answer.

Kids need to be given good sex ed. But I think strictly handing out condoms all over the place out of the belief they are going to do it anyway, is much like handing out Fuzz Busters with Drivers Licenses for 16 year old's.

I ultimately put the responsibility on parents though. I think it's actually educating parents on the importance of educating their own kids is where society fails most. The fact that parents seem to want to put the burden on schools to teach this stuff seems one of the core problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top